I suppose somebody has to take the blame, and John Lloyd was also the subject of criticism (although quite rightly imo) after the ill-starred tie against Poland in 2009, in which Andy aggravated a wrist injury, when he chose rookie Dan Evans to play the crucial 5th rubber instead of the more experienced Colin Fleming.

Both Stepanek and Berdych looked tremendously happy and so they should be.

Don’t get me wrong but I thought Ferrer looked rather angry than unhappy. Still feel for poor Almagro. He did the best he could.

I thought Ferrer looked angry too after Almagro lost the 2nd set and was struggling a bit in the fourth, but I can't say I blame him - it's a normal human reaction. From what I saw and heard he played superb tennis and must have hoped that Almagro would follow suit. I certainly wouldn't like to be Almagro right now and that pic sums it all up.

And on the subject of Davis Cup, I saw this on the BBC website -

Josh Goodall: Great Britain number two may retire in summer

Great Britain's number two tennis player Josh Goodall is considering retiring from the sport next summer because of financial concerns.

Goodall won't retire. Sounds like he's trying to force the LTA into more money to aid his career. I do wonder how those guys around that sort of ranking (200 and below) get by though.

I agree, and when you look at the comparison between Murray and Goodall annexed to the article, i.e. that Goodall's career earnings at the age of 27 are £258,969, whereas Murray at 25 has career earnings of £15.6m, which included £333,000 from his first two tournaments of 2012 alone, it sounds like a good case for the radical change in the distribution of prize money which, as I'm sure you know, has been a bone of contention for some time now and which saw the AO threatened with a boycott, fortunately averted thanks to action taken by the organisers' decision to increase the total purse, with increases being weighted towards lower-ranked players who lose in the early rounds.

As I see it, it's a vicious circle for those players since, without a high profile, they don't attract lucrative sponsorships, and so struggle to meet the costs of their living expenses and travel, and presumably also find it difficult to hire decent coaches who might be able to raise the level of their game to a point where they can be more successful and as a result earn more prize money.

As I see it, it's a vicious circle for those players since, without a high profile, they don't attract lucrative sponsorships, and so struggle to meet the costs of their living expenses and travel, and presumably also find it difficult to hire decent coaches who might be able to raise the level of their game to a point where they can be more successful and as a result earn more prize money.

I agree, and I think life is hard enough on the tour without players having to worry about the sort of things you mention.

That said, it's a hard balance, because if prize money is increased significantly for those who lose in early rounds it could be perceived as propping up those who simply don't have the talent to progress up the rankings and go deeper in to tournaments, in other words, enabling them to live comfortably enough to the point that there is no incentive to get better.

I don't see our Andy reacting that way to Almagro. Almagro, I am sure gave his all, and he felt bad enough for losing; if anything, I thought he deserved a big hug but to make him feel even worse is just not right. A person’s feeling, especially when he’s down, is far more important than a win for your country, especially when you’ve won it before. That’s why I don’t like Davis Cup because one player has to take all the burden of a fall in the end, especially when the pressure is at its highest. Andy could have lost too and I would have hated it if anyone had treated him wrong or looked at him in the way as if he didn’t deserve to be in the team at all. It should be fun if you win and memorable; if not, that should be fine too and still memorable. You can achieve both either way.